Hold up…Don’t panic…this was not a evil mean Al Qaedaterrorist plot..This was actually just a simple accident that happens in life…No need to run and hide under your beds like little kids….This is real life…accidents happen….

This was once a debate that completely dominated the political sphere not just in the United States but through out the world as well. This could very well once again over shadow the current economical debate that is/has dominated the political sphere in Washington D.C.

This of course is all up to the American People alone, I personally do not see this happening though, The majority of the American people are worried if they can pay their bills next month. While this is a very important issue the economical issues MUST take precedence over the foreign affairs issue.

If the country turns it’s focus off of the economical issues and start turning to the foreign affairs issues then Barack Obama will win reelection in 2012. But if Americans remain on the issue of economical stability then we will have a new President in 2012 and that is I think what a lot of people deep down inside want. It is time to hold Government accountable and no more passing the damn buck.

U.S. special forces killed bin Laden in Pakistan on Sunday, bringing a dramatic end to the long manhunt for the man who was the most powerful symbol of Islamist militancy.

Seventy-nine percent who participated in the poll said Washington made the right decision to kill bin Laden, compared with 14 percent who said no and 7 percent who were not sure.

But only 25 percent said they felt safer after the death of the al Qaeda leader, compared with 59 percent who said they did not.

Obama got a fair amount of credit for killing bin Laden, with 37 percent saying he deserved the most credit, while 13 percent said his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush, should get the credit. Some 50 percent said neither should get credit for the raid.

A slim majority of respondents, or 51 percent, said bin Laden’s killing had not changed their perception of Obama’s leadership. But 29 percent said it made them feel more favorable to him and 13 percent said they now feel much more favorable. Seven percent said the killing made them feel less so.

Forty-three percent voted that Obama is handling the war on terrorism effectively, compared with 26 percent who said he was handling it ineffectively. Thirty-one percent said they were not sure.

The poll questions were each answered by some 1,200 to 1,300 U.S. and foreign readers of Reuters.com.

The U.S. government‘s new system to replace the five color-coded terror alerts will have two levels of warnings – elevated and imminent – that will be relayed to the public only under certain circumstances for limited periods of time, sometimes using Facebook and Twitter, according to a draft Homeland Security Department plan obtained by The Associated Press.

Some terror warnings could be withheld from the public entirely if announcing a threat would risk exposing an intelligence operation or an ongoing investigation, according to the government’s confidential plan.

Like a gallon of milk, the new terror warnings will each come with a stamped expiration date.

The 19-page document, marked “for official use only” and dated April 1, describes the step-by-step process that would occur behind the scenes when the government believes terrorists might be threatening Americans. It describes the sequence of notifying members of Congress, then counterterrorism officials in states and cities and then governors and mayors and, ultimately, the public. It specifies even details about how many minutes U.S. officials can wait before organizing urgent conference calls among themselves to discuss pending threats. It places the Homeland Security secretary, currently Janet Napolitano, in charge of the so-called National Terrorism Advisory System.

The new terror alerts would also be published online using Facebook and Twitter “when appropriate,” the plan said, but only after federal, state and local government leaders have already been notified. The new system is expected to be in place by April 27.

The government has always struggled with how much information it can share with the public about specific threats, sometimes over fears it would reveal classified intelligence or law enforcement efforts to disrupt an unfolding plot. But the color warnings that became one of the government’s most visible anti-terrorism programs since the September 2001 attacks were criticized as too vague to be useful and became fodder for late-night talk shows.

The new advisory system is designed to be easier to understand and more specific, but it’s impossible to know how often the public will receive these warnings. The message will always depend on the threat and the intelligence behind it.

For example, if there is a specific threat that terrorists were looking to hide explosives in backpacks around U.S. airports, the government might issue a public warning that would be announced in airports telling travelers to remain vigilant and report any unattended backpacks or other suspicious activity to authorities.

If the intelligence community believes a terror threat is so serious that an alert should be issued, the warning would offer specific information for specific audiences. The Homeland Security secretary would make the final decision on whether to issue an alert and to whom – sometimes just to law enforcement and other times to the public.

According to the draft plan, an “elevated” alert would warn of a credible threat against the U.S. It would not likely specify timing or targets, but it could reveal terrorist trends that intelligence officials believe should be shared in order to prevent an attack. That alert would expire after no more than 30 days but could be extended.

An “imminent” alert would warn about a credible, specific and impending terrorist threat or an on-going attack against the U.S. That alert would expire after no more than seven days but could be extended.

There hasn’t been a change in the color warnings since 2006, despite an uptick in attempted attacks and terror plots against the U.S. That’s because the counterterrorism community has found other ways to notify relevant people about a particular threat. In December 2010, intelligence officials learned that a terrorist organization was looking to use insulated beverage containers to hide explosives. That information was relayed to the aviation industry to be watchful. Less formal warnings like that will continue under the new system.

In the past, there was no established system for determining whether to raise or lower the threat level, said James Carafano, a national security expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank. In part because of this, travelers heard about nonspecific orange threats in airports since August 2006 when the government responded to an al-Qaida plot to detonate liquid explosive bombs hidden in soft drink bottles on aircraft bound for the United States and Canada.

While there was coordination among U.S. counterterrorism officials about the threat, “It was pretty much kind of a gut call,” said Carafano, who was on a 2009 advisory committee to review the color alerts and suggest ways to improve them.

According to the draft plan, before an official alert is issued, there is a multi-step process that must be followed, starting with intelligence sharing among multiple federal, state and local agencies, including the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center and the White House. If the threat is considered serious enough, a Homeland Security official will call for a meeting of a special counterterrorism advisory board. That board would be expected to meet within 30 minutes of being called, and if it’s decided an alert is necessary, it would need to be issued within two hours.

“The plan is not yet final, as we will continue to meet and exercise with our partners to finalize a plan that meets everyone’s needs,” Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said.